4.3 Article

Oncological and functional outcomes after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: A comprehensive analysis of prognostic factors

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 382-389

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03176.x

关键词

cardiovascular disease events; chronic kidney disease; prognosis; radical nephrectomy; renal cell carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate mortality rates and to comprehensively analyze prognostic indicators after radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Methods Data were collected from 147 patients who underwent potentially curative radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. The following data were analyzed: tumor pathology, patient demographics and clinical parameters, such as pre- and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, as well as the cause of death. Cause-specific survival rates were calculated including deaths caused by renal cell carcinoma and cardiovascular disease. A Cox proportional hazard model was used for statistical analysis. Results A univariate analysis showed that age at surgery (70 years), postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (<45mL/min/1.73m2), pathological high T stage, grade and venous invasion were significant poor prognostic indicators. The multivariate analysis provided evidence that pathological venous invasion was a significant poor prognostic indicator, whereas age at surgery (70 years), pre- (<65mL/min/1.73m2) or postoperative (<45mL/min/1.73m2) estimated glomerular filtration rate and pathological high grade were significant poor prognostic indicators in T1 tumor cases. Conclusions Post-radical nephrectomy renal function insufficiency can lead to a poor prognostic outcome, especially in patients with T1 renal cell carcinoma. Physicians should consider a comprehensive follow up focusing on possible causes of death, including those related to both renal cell carcinoma and cardiovascular disease events after radical nephrectomy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据